Aides to Texans on Capitol Hill alter bosses’ Wikipedia entries

1/1

Tom Fox/Staff Photographer

Eleven members of the Texas delegation had potential flaws removed, controversies airbrushed and positive content peppered into their Wikipedia biographies by people who used a computer inside the U.S. House.

WASHINGTON — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit — including Capitol Hill staffers, who have tailored pages to make their bosses sound better.

Eleven members of the Texas delegation had potential flaws removed, controversies airbrushed and positive content peppered into their Wikipedia biographies by people who used a computer inside the U.S. House, a Dallas Morning News review shows.

An entire section was removed from the page of Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-El Paso, detailing an ethics complaint while he was an El Paso City Council member. Two complaints, which addressed O’Rourke’s family ties to a group the city was paying to develop the downtown area, were ultimately dismissed.

The section was removed by someone using a House computer in September, only to see another user add it back in hours later. O’Rourke’s chief of staff, David Wysong, said he did not know who had made the changes.

For two years, someone inside the House tried to delete information about a spat Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, had with Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. After several deletions — other users added it back in — all that’s left is a link to a video of the exchange near the bottom of the page.

In addition to the 11 members who had substantial changes, other members’ pages contain smaller tweaks. Some update the page with new election statistics or committee information. In March, someone added a “Mr.” before every mention of Rockwall Republican Rep. Ralph Hall’s last name.

More changes might have been made from Capitol Hill, but if the user is registered with Wikipedia, it is difficult to know where the change came from.

The changes show the extent to which lawmakers’ staffers will go to micromanage their bosses’ image, even on relatively minor incidents, and raise concerns that people using Wikipedia to learn about their representatives or decide how to vote could be missing the full story.

Wikipedia benefits from having users with knowledge and interest about topics contribute information. But the site, in an effort to avoid being overrun by image-polishing, has rules about who can post what.

Wikipedia’s policy bars all users from updating pages of their employers. Those with a conflict of interest are instructed to use the “talk” section of each page to address errors. But it’s not clear who is making the edits.

No staffers working in communications for lawmakers knew who made the changes, some of which date back years ago. It could have been a former staffer, an intern or someone who never worked in their office.

Only one changer, a staffer in Mercedes Democrat Rep. Rubén Hinojosa’s office in March 2008, identified himself as working for the congressman. Hinojosa’s current communications director doesn’t know who made the change.

Wikipedia is often derided as an unreliable source of information. But it’s the sixth-most-popular website in the world. That makes it essential for communications directors to monitor, said Phil Gomes, co-founder of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.

“All most people know about a given topic is what they can find in search. In that sense, Wikipedia is incredibly powerful,” Gomes said. “There’s an incredible incentive to make sure it’s accurate.”

That incentive can lead to bosses pressing communications professionals to break the rules and alter the pages, said Marcia DiStaso, an assistant professor of public relations at Penn State University who has worked with public relations officials.

“The normal response is they’re afraid to lose their job,” she said. “With your job on the line and your boss telling you what to do, you know you’re not going to go to jail over it, making edits in Wikipedia, but you’re faced with you could lose your job.”

There are ways for communications directors — and other congressional staffers — to fix pages without breaking the rules. But many people don’t take the time to learn the rules in the first place, DiStaso said.

Her survey of members of public relations organizations found that only one-fifth said they understood Wikipedia’s rules. More than 60 percent said updating Wikipedia pages was a common practice in their profession.

“When we’re talking about politics, clearly there’s an ethical line that people need to be more aware of,” DiStaso said. “If it feels wrong, it probably is wrong.”

Follow Emily Wilkins on Twitter at @emrwilkins.

AT A GLANCE: Among the edits

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington: In 2005, the wording in a paragraph of his views on climate change was changed to make his views sound less controversial.

Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland: In 2006, a sentence was deleted stating he had fought against extending the Voting Rights Act to protect minorities.

Rep. Bill Flores, R-Bryan: In 2012, someone removed a line about his time with Marine Drilling when he personally oversaw bankruptcy filings, resulting in a $7.5 million loss to the federal government

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas: In 2008, seven paragraphs were added about Hensarling that were accurate but positively slanted. A paragraph saying he opposed abortion rights was changed to read that he “has consistently voted to uphold life.”

Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, D-Mercedes: In 2008, someone identifying himself or herself as a staffer added numerous highly positive paragraphs for Hinojosa’s biography with few concrete examples.

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Plano: In 2005, a reference to the time Johnson referred to presidential candidate John Kerry as “Hanoi John” was removed, as well as a paragraph noting Johnson had mentioned that bombing Syria would take care of issues in the region. The same paragraph noted that Johnson said it was a joke.

Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land: In October, a sentence was removed stating Olson “voted to continue funding NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens who are not suspected of committing any crime.”

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio: In 2009, several sections were removed. They covered his position on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, his opposition to a bill that would grant equal access to the U.S. Supreme Court for U.S. military members, and his voting for the 2008 financial bailout less than a year before supporting tea party protests for smaller government.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon: In 2011, several paragraphs were airbrushed to focus on the positives of bills Thornberry backed.

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.